Nvidia ready to counter AMD`s Mantle

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

3DVagabond

Lifer
Aug 10, 2009
11,951
204
106
If Microsoft is now committed to bringing a thinner API to Windows while still maintaining IHV compatibility, then Mantle is already dead.

Why would that be your take on the situation? Just about everyone else now sees all of this as healthy competition benefiting consumers (You and I). M$ has been milking DX and using it to manipulate the market into investing in their continual OS upgrade path in order for consumers to stay current with DX, while nVidia has taken the opportunity to charge unprecedented amounts for their top GPU's. In one move AMD has gotten both M$ and nVidia off their a$$es to improve performance without having to shell out for new hardware, and likely no new software (unless M$ wants to shoot themselves between their corporate eyes). If AMD decides to continue their perf/$ with Hawaii as they have with the Tahiti refresh (keeps fingers crossed. It looks like they are at least going to try and somewhat improve on the value with Hawaii. How much remains to be seen.) then this will all be brilliant for everyone who buys a new GPU.

You somehow seem to only see the possibility as this creating a fail for AMD. You, and all of us, should be hoping hard AMD comes in well below the current market, and with Mantle, blows DX out of the water. If they don't the alternative is more of the same. Prices double. GPU power doubles. DX eats up every bit of that additional performance and then some. We are forced to spend $1000 for a single GPU to give us maximum fidelity in new games. Where are you coming from? What is it that you hope for in the market? Simply AMD failing regardless of the cost to all of us?
 

2is

Diamond Member
Apr 8, 2012
4,281
131
106
The real one to watch out for is Microsoft.

Microsoft has been so lackadaisical over the years when it comes to their PC gaming supremacy which they've taken for granted, but now it's finally coming back to bite them in the ass.

But it looks like AMD's Mantle announcement and Valve's Steam OS has thrown some cold water on their sleepy asses..

Microsoft wants to bring console like API to Windows.


If Microsoft is now committed to bringing a thinner API to Windows while still maintaining IHV compatibility, then Mantle is already dead.

I was just about to post that MS could very easily play spoiler here, and I hope they do.
 

itsmydamnation

Platinum Member
Feb 6, 2011
2,743
3,075
136
Who cares about Carmack anymore? He's the Michael Jordan of game developers. Looks like he's in the Washington phase right now.

completely incorrect, what do you think megatextures effectively are*, john has been ahead of the curve in just about everything he does. What he doesn't care for is the modern day world of physically correct algorithms.

Anyone who thinks john is past his used by date just needs to listen to this years quakecon speeches ( more then just the keynote).

*hint:
software implementation of tiled resources,
 

VulgarDisplay

Diamond Member
Apr 3, 2009
6,193
2
76
I was just about to post that MS could very easily play spoiler here, and I hope they do.

Microsoft still has to deal with abstraction to work with both GPU manufactures. AMD is obviously not concerned with that.
 

VulgarDisplay

Diamond Member
Apr 3, 2009
6,193
2
76
completely incorrect, what do you think megatextures effectively are*, john has been ahead of the curve in just about everything he does. What he doesn't care for is the modern day world of physically correct algorithms.

Anyone who thinks john is past his used by date just needs to listen to this years quakecon speeches ( more then just the keynote).

*hint:
software implementation of tiled resources,

He's a brilliant programmer. He's also a horrible game designer.
 

2is

Diamond Member
Apr 8, 2012
4,281
131
106
Why would that be your take on the situation? Just about everyone else now sees all of this as healthy competition benefiting consumers (You and I). M$ has been milking DX and using it to manipulate the market into investing in their continual OS upgrade path in order for consumers to stay current with DX, while nVidia has taken the opportunity to charge unprecedented amounts for their top GPU's. In one move AMD has gotten both M$ and nVidia off their a$$es to improve performance without having to shell out for new hardware, and likely no new software (unless M$ wants to shoot themselves between their corporate eyes). If AMD decides to continue their perf/$ with Hawaii as they have with the Tahiti refresh (keeps fingers crossed. It looks like they are at least going to try and somewhat improve on the value with Hawaii. How much remains to be seen.) then this will all be brilliant for everyone who buys a new GPU.

You somehow seem to only see the possibility as this creating a fail for AMD. You, and all of us, should be hoping hard AMD comes in well below the current market, and with Mantle, blows DX out of the water. If they don't the alternative is more of the same. Prices double. GPU power doubles. DX eats up every bit of that additional performance and then some. We are forced to spend $1000 for a single GPU to give us maximum fidelity in new games. Where are you coming from? What is it that you hope for in the market? Simply AMD failing regardless of the cost to all of us?

I don't see this type of competition being a good thing. I don't want to have to swap GPUs depending on if I'm playing a Gaming Evolved game or a TWIMTBP game to get all the features of the game. As if Physx wasn't bad enough on its own, now we have Mantle and whatever else nVIdia does to counter it. Too much proprietary crap.
 

3DVagabond

Lifer
Aug 10, 2009
11,951
204
106
I don't see this type of competition being a good thing. I don't want to have to swap GPUs depending on if I'm playing a Gaming Evolved game or a TWIMTBP game to get all the features of the game. As if Physx wasn't bad enough on its own, now we have Mantle and whatever else nVIdia does to counter it. Too much proprietary crap.

DX is proprietary. :\

Since Vista M$ has used DX to extort us into buying their software. The mistake they made is they've not made it as efficient as it can be and now we have other API's that are going to run better. If M$ wants DX to continue as the dominant game rendering pipeline they are going to have to make it better than what AMD and nVidia can come up with. It's entirely probable that they will.

Besides, AMD said they didn't blindside M$ with Mantle. They said they have a very good working relationship with M$ and wouldn't want to jeopardize that. I think people are getting their panties in a bunch for no reason as far as DX goes.
 

krumme

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2009
5,952
1,585
136
In 3 weeks nv did what took amd 4 years.
To do so they invented the time machine.
 

Will Robinson

Golden Member
Dec 19, 2009
1,408
0
0
I don't see this type of competition being a good thing. I don't want to have to swap GPUs depending on if I'm playing a Gaming Evolved game or a TWIMTBP game to get all the features of the game. As if Physx wasn't bad enough on its own, now we have Mantle and whatever else nVIdia does to counter it. Too much proprietary crap.

No need...DirectX will still be there to interact with NV and legacy AMD hardware while Mantle will allow closer programming with hardware featuring GCN architecture.
O' yee of little faith:)
 

UaVaj

Golden Member
Nov 16, 2012
1,546
0
76
funny how most times, when one company launches something the other magically has something ready to counter. and why has it taken this damn long to figure out a more efficient way to do things?

milking everything dry before the next launch. capitalism at its best! :thumbsup::thumbsup:
 

2is

Diamond Member
Apr 8, 2012
4,281
131
106
DX is proprietary. :\

Since Vista M$ has used DX to extort us into buying their software. The mistake they made is they've not made it as efficient as it can be and now we have other API's that are going to run better. If M$ wants DX to continue as the dominant game rendering pipeline they are going to have to make it better than what AMD and nVidia can come up with. It's entirely probable that they will.

Besides, AMD said they didn't blindside M$ with Mantle. They said they have a very good working relationship with M$ and wouldn't want to jeopardize that. I think people are getting their panties in a bunch for no reason as far as DX goes.

And whos GPU can't use DX? AMD or nVidia, or maybe its Intel?

Its proprietary to Windows, which is hardly the same limitation as AMD only or nVidia only APIs

I get there will still be a DX path btw.
 
Last edited:

wand3r3r

Diamond Member
May 16, 2008
3,180
0
0
Talk about flip flopping positions at the whim of a company.

Now bring something to the table please. All talk and no product so far.
 

3DVagabond

Lifer
Aug 10, 2009
11,951
204
106
And whos GPU can't use DX? AMD or nVidia, or maybe its Intel?

Its proprietary to Windows, which is hardly the same limitation as AMD only or nVidia only APIs

I get there will still be a DX path btw.

Because of market penetration it effectively gives DX a monopoly. Monopolies get lazy, fat, greedy and unproductive. Like you say, Mantle doesn't get in the way of DX11. It will only highlight it for what it is, inefficient. M$ will have to address this.

I wouldn't be surprised if they already are and Mantle is only a temp solution implemented by AMD. Because, trust me, the last thing AMD would want is for an OS supplier the size of M$ to be PO'd at them. Imagine what would happen to AMD (or any hardware vendor) if they threatened to unseat DX as the premier render path for gaming. M$ has way too much invested in DX to allow that to happen. I could see AMD hardware becoming very unoptimized for Windows, very quickly.
 

Keysplayr

Elite Member
Jan 16, 2003
21,209
50
91
funny how most times, when one company launches something the other magically has something ready to counter. and why has it taken this damn long to figure out a more efficient way to do things?

Yes. I've often stewed about something. Why, after all the years AMD and Nvidia, or AMD and Intel have been designing silicon, has not one of the companies ran away with performance? You'd think that over a period of a few decades, one company would vastly overshadow another, not ALWAYS be ridiculously neck and neck especially when AMD for example has next to no funds. They can STILL offer a Titan competitor, when Nvidia has relatively unlimited funds to utterly wipe the floor with AMD. Same with Intel. AMD does not offer a faster CPU than Intels fastest, BUT is STILL able to keep up a few tiers lower with next to no money for R&D and such. When I say next to no money, I'm talking in relative terms compared to Intel or Nvidia.

Seems quite impossible to me and the only explanation that I can wrap my mind around is that they actually are all working together, despite public appearances.
Something isn't right. Hasn't been for many many many years. Only in the last few have I suspected anything like collusion between these companies.

I'm sick (Not really. Just sick of it) over the whole industry. My views have changed pretty radically over the last few years. Anyone ever get this feeling when they see year after year, gen after gen, that one company does not continually walk away from the other? Does not make sense. Even two turtles racing over a 100 mile distance will cross a given finish line at completely different times. Could be a week apart, could be a month, or a year. Best analogy I can come up with on a half a cup of coffee.

Good morning to all, and have a great day!
 
Last edited:

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,841
1,536
136
You somehow seem to only see the possibility as this creating a fail for AMD. You, and all of us, should be hoping hard AMD comes in well below the current market, and with Mantle, blows DX out of the water. If they don't the alternative is more of the same. Prices double. GPU power doubles. DX eats up every bit of that additional performance and then some. We are forced to spend $1000 for a single GPU to give us maximum fidelity in new games. Where are you coming from? What is it that you hope for in the market? Simply AMD failing regardless of the cost to all of us?

What I want, or what you want doesn't matter. It's the logical outcome. Mantle will never become an industry standard for the obvious reason that if Microsoft tweaks Direct3D in Windows to more of a console like level of performance, whilst keeping IHV compatibility intact, then Mantle loses it's greatest advantage whilst retaining it's exclusionary nature, which is a disadvantage.

If Mantle was going to be on the consoles, then I'd probably be forced to change my stance. But since it's on PCs only, then it's always going to be a niche API.
 

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,645
0
76
www.facebook.com
John Carmack started on OpenGL before DX or DX was any good. He never changed, but has mentioned that if he were to start over, he'd definitely go with DX as he feels it is better than OpenGL. Though with SteamOS, I doubt he'd repeat that today (this was earlier this year or last year when he said he'd choose DX over OpenGL). The downside of DX isn't the API, it is that it is for Windows Only.
i don't know that he said that. is there broad consensus that he meant that? i dont know why he wouldve stayed with opengl if dx was easier. he doesnt seem to me like someone who would like uniform standards and the restrictive pipeline of dx11 but i could be wrong on any or all of that... im going to try to be open.

and no dx sucks because it has helped make nv and amd the only players since 2002 via its min specs that really picked up with the R300... the geforce fx didnt really suck that much more than the R300 because the latter had partial precision for the pixel shaders and it was a step back from the 8500 in terms of filtering and the 8500 even had 32 bit z-buffer support.
anyway, please don't be so satisfied with everything:)

also, if they're linking it to the Xbox One, then it won't ever not suck.
 
Last edited:

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,645
0
76
www.facebook.com
perhaps torvalds wouldnt want me mentioning his name just as carmack wouldnt want me to, but i think linux is going to change the world and microsoft will become irrelevant soon. were going to see the end of hardware blending and depth while meeting radical parallel computing architectures within the next 5 years anyway.

microsoft would not have been without ip and skilled lawyers.
 

NIGELG

Senior member
Nov 4, 2009
851
31
91
Yes. I've often stewed about something. Why, after all the years AMD and Nvidia, or AMD and Intel have been designing silicon, has not one of the companies ran away with performance? You'd think that over a period of a few decades, one company would vastly overshadow another, not ALWAYS be ridiculously neck and neck especially when AMD for example has next to no funds. They can STILL offer a Titan competitor, when Nvidia has relatively unlimited funds to utterly wipe the floor with AMD. Same with Intel. AMD does not offer a faster CPU than Intels fastest, BUT is STILL able to keep up a few tiers lower with next to no money for R&D and such. When I say next to no money, I'm talking in relative terms compared to Intel or Nvidia.

Seems quite impossible to me and the only explanation that I can wrap my mind around is that they actually are all working together, despite public appearances.
Something isn't right. Hasn't been for many many many years. Only in the last few have I suspected anything like collusion between these companies.

I'm sick (Not really. Just sick of it) over the whole industry. My views have changed pretty radically over the last few years. Anyone ever get this feeling when they see year after year, gen after gen, that one company does not continually walk away from the other? Does not make sense. Even two turtles racing over a 100 mile distance will cross a given finish line at completely different times. Could be a week apart, could be a month, or a year. Best analogy I can come up with on a half a cup of coffee.

Good morning to all, and have a great day!
Where is your signature?Are you out of the Nvidia focus group?

Collusion?Have you ever said anything about it before now?Or are you finally free to say so now?

For the record I don't think there is any collusion and Intel IS wiping the floor with AMD CPU'S....


nVIDIA does NOT have limitless funds to ''wipe the floor with AMD''.
 

seitur

Senior member
Jul 12, 2013
383
1
81
Does NVIDIA OpenGL improvements / extensions will allow for increased number of draw calls?

Serious question here. I am geniunely interested if something was said specifically about that?

Cause that would be very nice. Still maintaining OGL cross-hardware and cross-platform, but being able to mimimize bottlenecks.
 

Keysplayr

Elite Member
Jan 16, 2003
21,209
50
91
Where is your signature?Are you out of the Nvidia focus group?

Maybe. Haven't fully decided yet. Do not show your obsession for my focus group affiliation. Doesn't have anything to do with my thought process here.

Collusion?Have you ever said anything about it before now?Or are you finally free to say so now?
Not really. Just thought about it.
Second question doesn't even apply.


For the record I don't think there is any collusion and Intel IS wiping the floor with AMD CPU'S....
Not really. As I stated, AMD can't compete with Intel's fastest, but still, with little more than non-existent funds when compared to Intel, is still able to offer viable alternatives for a competitive system.

nVIDIA does NOT have limitless funds to ''wipe the floor with AMD''.

I didn't say Nvidia had limitless funds. I said relatively unlimited compared to AMD. Difference.
 

wand3r3r

Diamond Member
May 16, 2008
3,180
0
0
Yes. I've often stewed about something. Why, after all the years AMD and Nvidia, or AMD and Intel have been designing silicon, has not one of the companies ran away with performance? You'd think that over a period of a few decades, one company would vastly overshadow another, not ALWAYS be ridiculously neck and neck especially when AMD for example has next to no funds. They can STILL offer a Titan competitor, when Nvidia has relatively unlimited funds to utterly wipe the floor with AMD. Same with Intel. AMD does not offer a faster CPU than Intels fastest, BUT is STILL able to keep up a few tiers lower with next to no money for R&D and such. When I say next to no money, I'm talking in relative terms compared to Intel or Nvidia.

Seems quite impossible to me and the only explanation that I can wrap my mind around is that they actually are all working together, despite public appearances.
Something isn't right. Hasn't been for many many many years. Only in the last few have I suspected anything like collusion between these companies.

I'm sick (Not really. Just sick of it) over the whole industry. My views have changed pretty radically over the last few years. Anyone ever get this feeling when they see year after year, gen after gen, that one company does not continually walk away from the other? Does not make sense. Even two turtles racing over a 100 mile distance will cross a given finish line at completely different times. Could be a week apart, could be a month, or a year. Best analogy I can come up with on a half a cup of coffee.

Good morning to all, and have a great day!

That's quite a statement. :thumbsup:

Whether there is truth in it or not it's though provoking. You'd think with entirely different architectures etc. at some point you'd start to have considerably differing performance as they come to fruition.
 

parvadomus

Senior member
Dec 11, 2012
685
14
81
Yes. I've often stewed about something. Why, after all the years AMD and Nvidia, or AMD and Intel have been designing silicon, has not one of the companies ran away with performance? You'd think that over a period of a few decades, one company would vastly overshadow another, not ALWAYS be ridiculously neck and neck especially when AMD for example has next to no funds. They can STILL offer a Titan competitor, when Nvidia has relatively unlimited funds to utterly wipe the floor with AMD. Same with Intel. AMD does not offer a faster CPU than Intels fastest, BUT is STILL able to keep up a few tiers lower with next to no money for R&D and such. When I say next to no money, I'm talking in relative terms compared to Intel or Nvidia.

Seems quite impossible to me and the only explanation that I can wrap my mind around is that they actually are all working together, despite public appearances.
Something isn't right. Hasn't been for many many many years. Only in the last few have I suspected anything like collusion between these companies.

I'm sick (Not really. Just sick of it) over the whole industry. My views have changed pretty radically over the last few years. Anyone ever get this feeling when they see year after year, gen after gen, that one company does not continually walk away from the other? Does not make sense. Even two turtles racing over a 100 mile distance will cross a given finish line at completely different times. Could be a week apart, could be a month, or a year. Best analogy I can come up with on a half a cup of coffee.

Good morning to all, and have a great day!

The thing is, Intel is way ahead AMD in CPUs, however 32nm must be cheap enough for AMD to compete at least in the mid-low end.
And vs Nvidia, GPUs ARE TOO EASY, I bet the K10 uArch is harder than making a GK110, and lets not talk about intel Core, this things are WAY MORE COMPLEX than a GPU. Add to this that both AMD and NV get their GPUs done by TSMC, and you end up with GPUs with comparable performances/watt.
 

Cloudfire777

Golden Member
Mar 24, 2013
1,787
95
91
Yes. I've often stewed about something. Why, after all the years AMD and Nvidia, or AMD and Intel have been designing silicon, has not one of the companies ran away with performance? You'd think that over a period of a few decades, one company would vastly overshadow another, not ALWAYS be ridiculously neck and neck especially when AMD for example has next to no funds. They can STILL offer a Titan competitor, when Nvidia has relatively unlimited funds to utterly wipe the floor with AMD. Same with Intel. AMD does not offer a faster CPU than Intels fastest, BUT is STILL able to keep up a few tiers lower with next to no money for R&D and such. When I say next to no money, I'm talking in relative terms compared to Intel or Nvidia.

Seems quite impossible to me and the only explanation that I can wrap my mind around is that they actually are all working together, despite public appearances.
Something isn't right. Hasn't been for many many many years. Only in the last few have I suspected anything like collusion between these companies.

I'm sick (Not really. Just sick of it) over the whole industry. My views have changed pretty radically over the last few years. Anyone ever get this feeling when they see year after year, gen after gen, that one company does not continually walk away from the other? Does not make sense. Even two turtles racing over a 100 mile distance will cross a given finish line at completely different times. Could be a week apart, could be a month, or a year. Best analogy I can come up with on a half a cup of coffee.

Good morning to all, and have a great day!

Yeah like I posted earlier in this thread, they slowplay each other in sake of profit.

Nvidia could have unleashed the GK110 from the getgo and be done with it. But instead built a smaller GK104, and release bigger and bigger, step by step, while marketing them like something revolutionary to fire up people to buy the "new" GPUs. I say "new" because I`m pretty sure they have made many ES of several Nvidia GPUs a long time ago, where atleast one design was good enough to be made QS. But instead they wait to see any of the two make a move, then release their QS that was made a long time ago.

Both Nvidia and AMD don`t want to outplay each other, because that lead to an arms race which benefit customers more than the companies. Imagine a beast like GK110/290X from the beginning, mastering all of the games without a hitch. How would they market the new GPUs? Both companies like to use games as examples to get people to buy GPUs.
"This new GPU can play Battlefield 4 in 1600p maxed out"
"Yeah I`ll pass, my GK110/R9 290X released 2 years ago can do that too".
Throw in Mantle and OpenGL optimizations which they pushed out several years ago, that meant that the GPUs is much better utilized with much better performance/hardware (like they do with consoles to squeeze the most out of the hardware), you kinda understand why neither AMD nor Nvidia have bothered making an effort making a better API. Who knows, customers might had only needed a smaller cheaper GPU to play todays games that need a big power sucking GPU that doesnt really perform its best due to inefficient DX API.

I`m not entirely sure how much they pay for silicon from TSMC, although I understand that a GK110 551mm^2 cost more than GK104 295mm^2, a GPU consist of many parts. The silicon itself is just a fraction of the total cost, parts like fan, PCB, vapour chamber, casing etc also cost money. So I have trouble believing that the silicon itself means that the total price have to double (GK104 = $500, GK110 = $1000).
 
Last edited: